Guest guest Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Oh, also forgot to say that as far as I know the couple of people in this group who seem to be against national health insurance are people who are on Medicare...What I can't understand about that is that Medicare is a government-run program. So there seems to be an inherent hypocrysy there. Government-run Medicare is fine, but government-run national health insurance is not OK? Makes no sense. > > I am almost reluctant to write this because I don't want to stir up more talk about national healthcare on this board. However, I do feel a desire to point out that most likely the couple of people here who are against national health coverage are people who either have Medicare, private health insurance through a spouse or their own work, or private health insurance that they can afford. If there is anyone here who is uninsured or underinsured and is against national health insurance, I would be very interested in hearing from them. I doubt there are any such people, but please let me know if there are! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 For the record, I am in a family of 5. Me, my husband, and 3 children...and the only one who has insurance is my baby(she is 8 months they will only cover her until she is one). So we are almost all uninsured...we can't afford it through my husband's job because it would be $900 a month. And I DO NOT WANT THIS NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE! If you don't take their insurance, they can possibly fine us for it...do you consider that a free country? Hmm, let's see, I can't afford their insurance, but since I won't accept it, they're going to fine us. If this national insurance is going to be so great, then why are the people in our goverenment immune from having to get it...but us the people aren't? Anyway...this is coming from somebody with no insurance, and I have a feeling you'll hear similar stories from others like me as well...but we'll see. > > I am almost reluctant to write this because I don't want to stir up more talk about national healthcare on this board. However, I do feel a desire to point out that most likely the couple of people here who are against national health coverage are people who either have Medicare, private health insurance through a spouse or their own work, or private health insurance that they can afford. If there is anyone here who is uninsured or underinsured and is against national health insurance, I would be very interested in hearing from them. I doubt there are any such people, but please let me know if there are! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 There is a huge difference between mandatory insurance and Medicaid. Medicaid has problems too (with unauthorized care) in that anything outside the medical model is not covered. They will give you interferon drugs that cost several thousand dollars a month but will not cover the cost of nutrients. Not all people on SSDI are thinking only of themselves. There are far more than a couple of people who are against this sick-care plan. > > Oh, also forgot to say that as far as I know the couple of people in this group who seem to be against national health insurance are people who are on Medicare...What I can't understand about that is that Medicare is a government-run program. So there seems to be an inherent hypocrysy there. Government-run Medicare is fine, but government-run national health insurance is not OK? Makes no sense. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 , I am against National Health Insurance. We do not have insurance because we can not afford it. Even if we could afford insurance, there are NO insurance plans which cover our prefered methods of treatment. There is a holistic dr about 2 hours from us that I would give my left arm to be able to take my 7 yr old, mentally ill step daughter to. The guy has a reputation for being competent and his treatments are very effective. My step daughter is on heavy duty psych. meds with very little result. I beleive this dr could help her, but no insurance will cover him, and he charges $300 a visit. (a visit consists of 3 hours of his time in office, a starter pack of whatever herbs or homeopathic remedies he suggests, and as many follow up phone calls as you need in a 2 month period.) But because he's not an allopathic physician no insurance company will work with him. We can't afford $300 at one clip for a visit, so I read his website, and and attend any webinars he gives, hoping to learn enough from him to help my step daugher function. However, I would rather do without insurance than have the government tell me what treatments and medications I can receive. Did you know that doctors can refuse to treat you if you refuse their treatment plan? So.. let's say this National Health Insurance says a person with MS must use one of the CRAB drugs in order to be eligible for further treatment. You go to your Dr. and refuse the CRABs, but you want something for occasional muscle spasms related to the MS. The dr. won't give it to you. Or.. let's say you take your child to the dr, and dr says I want your kid on this ADD med. But, you refuse the med. National Health Insurance guidelines say ADD has to be treated. Your dr then would be required to report you for child neglect because you " failed to treat your child's illness " But, maybe, like us, youre treating that kid at home with herbs. It won't matter. because the National Health Insurance plan says you MUST use this set of drugs if you have this specific DX. THAT is where this is all heading. There is a planned drug formulary and those using the National Healh Insurance will be requied to use the drugs in that formulary. Period. No discussion. Why should I be fined because I choose to forgo allopathic health care in favor of herbs, supplements, chiropractic, or Traditional Chinese Medicine? The National Health Plan won't cover alternatives -- ther's no money in it. Don't be fooled into thinking politicians care about your health. They care about two things.. power and money. Power, because by forcing people to use thier healht plan, they can control the health of the public, where the public spends it's healthcare money AND the treatments you use to manage YOUR body. .. money because many politicians have thier hands in the pharmacutical business in some way. I'd rather take the money I'd spend on insurance and put it in savings, where it sits and earns interest until we need it for medical care. Yvette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Hi Yvette, Although I understand your points, I still am in favor of national health insurance. I do agree that the great alternative docs don't take insurance anyway. There isn't much difference between the insurances trying to control our health versus the government trying to control it...In either case, the individual just has to choose not to go to the docs or pretend to take the med but not really take it, etc. My conventional doc and conventional neurologist and conventional gyn often tell me " try the Interferons " or " get a mammogram " or whatever. I just ignore them. If they hand me a script, I take the piece of paper and then I don't fill it. By the time I see the doc again 6 months later or whenever, they forget to ask about it anyway, because I'm usually there for some other reason--like to request a particular blood test..... Nobody is in our houses making sure we are doing what the docs told us. This isn't Orwell's 1984. There are no government surveillance cameras in our homes to make sure we follow through with what the docs say. They don't care that much or have enough resources to track individuals. It is up to the individual to stay educated and then turn down what is offered, such as vaccinations. One can always cite religion if needed to get out of meds. As it stands now, the insurances control the doctors. I think the " fines " thing will be dropped if it is even really in the works and not just propaganda from the opponents. The details of the plan are no where near finalized. > > , > > I am against National Health Insurance. We do not have insurance because we > can not afford it. Even if we could afford insurance, there are NO insurance > plans which cover our prefered methods of treatment. There is a holistic dr > about 2 hours from us that I would give my left arm to be able to take my 7 > yr old, mentally ill step daughter to. The guy has a reputation for being > competent and his treatments are very effective. My step daughter is on > heavy duty psych. meds with very little result. I beleive this dr could help > her, but no insurance will cover him, and he charges $300 a visit. (a visit > consists of 3 hours of his time in office, a starter pack of whatever herbs > or homeopathic remedies he suggests, and as many follow up phone calls as > you need in a 2 month period.) But because he's not an allopathic physician > no insurance company will work with him. We can't afford $300 at one clip > for a visit, so I read his website, and and attend any webinars he gives, > hoping to learn enough from him to help my step daugher function. > > However, I would rather do without insurance than have the government tell > me what treatments and medications I can receive. Did you know that doctors > can refuse to treat you if you refuse their treatment plan? So.. let's say > this National Health Insurance says a person with MS must use one of the > CRAB drugs in order to be eligible for further treatment. You go to your Dr. > and refuse the CRABs, but you want something for occasional muscle spasms > related to the MS. The dr. won't give it to you. > > Or.. let's say you take your child to the dr, and dr says I want your kid on > this ADD med. But, you refuse the med. National Health Insurance guidelines > say ADD has to be treated. Your dr then would be required to report you for > child neglect because you " failed to treat your child's illness " But, > maybe, like us, youre treating that kid at home with herbs. It won't matter. > because the National Health Insurance plan says you MUST use this set of > drugs if you have this specific DX. > > THAT is where this is all heading. There is a planned drug formulary and > those using the National Healh Insurance will be requied to use the drugs in > that formulary. Period. No discussion. > > Why should I be fined because I choose to forgo allopathic health care in > favor of herbs, supplements, chiropractic, or Traditional Chinese Medicine? > The National Health Plan won't cover alternatives -- ther's no money in it. > > Don't be fooled into thinking politicians care about your health. They care > about two things.. power and money. Power, because by forcing people to use > thier healht plan, they can control the health of the public, where the > public spends it's healthcare money AND the treatments you use to manage > YOUR body. .. money because many politicians have thier hands in the > pharmacutical business in some way. > > I'd rather take the money I'd spend on insurance and put it in savings, > where it sits and earns interest until we need it for medical care. > > Yvette > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 The difference is that the HealthCare Plan will be compulsary. Insurance now is by choice. There are many things written into the proposed bills that are well hidden. And yes, Baucus did propose a fine for those who did not comply and a tax on premiums with extensive coverage. With all the uproar about this bill, I am encouraged that it won't pass. > There isn't much difference between the insurances trying to control our health versus the government trying to control it...In either case, the individual just has to choose not to go to the docs or pretend to take the med but not really take it, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Even so, one cannot be forced to go to the doctor. I agree there is too much uproar for it to be passed with fines, but hopefully with some modificaitons it will still pass. If Medicaid is an OK program, other than the fraud and the cost to the government, then potentially national insurance could do the same thing with some tweaking. All this talk does have me wondering if I should drop my private health insurance that I pay $220 per month for even though I then have the $2500 deductible on top of that, so it never pays off. I guess the main reason I am keeping it is not at all because of the MS but because I have this uterine fibroid that keeps growing and is getting more problematic and I have been told it should be removed surgically, which is very expensive (includes a 3 day hospital stay and a private nurse/HHC afterwards for 3 weeks--so maybe $50K or so? (I get my period for 8 days a month now and have spotting though the month and look like I'm pregnant.) I am hoping to get to menopause before it would need to be removed surgically, because apparently menopause makes the fibroid go away, but I may be 8 years or more away from that. So anyway, the main reason I keep the insurance I think is because there is a fair chance that one of these days I am going to have to get the fibroid removed surgically and that is the year that I really will need the health insurance. I have been trying to fight the fibroid naturally, along with the MS, but so far the fibroid just gets biggger. > > The difference is that the HealthCare Plan will be compulsary. Insurance now is by choice. There are many things written into the proposed bills that are well hidden. And yes, Baucus did propose a fine for those who did not comply and a tax on premiums with extensive coverage. With all the uproar about this bill, I am encouraged that it won't pass. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Aren't you implying that there will be fraud and excess cost with any government health plan? The government won't be forcing you to go but they will force you to pay for it. In some cases people are already forced into taking ADD drugs and chemotherapy that they don't choose to do. That's just wrong. I want the government to stay out of the healthcare business. > > Even so, one cannot be forced to go to the doctor. I agree there is too much uproar for it to be passed with fines, but hopefully with some modificaitons it will still pass. If Medicaid is an OK program, other than the fraud and the cost to the government, then potentially national insurance could do the same thing with some tweaki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 No, I wsan't implying that. I was pointing out the hypocrysy in saying the Medicaid program is OK but that a national health care program is not viable. Obviously fraud is not wanted in any program, be it private or public. Unfortunately there is fraud in many things ranging for example from auto mechanics to regular health insurance to government to wall street etc. I am not condoning fraud in any way. I have been ripped off more times than I care to count. I hate fraud. What I am trying to say is that I don't see why a good national health insurance program can't be put together. Maybe what they have planned now is not good but that doesn't mean it can't be modified to be made better....People in Canada and Spain who have national health insurance aren't complaining about being forced into vaccinations or chemotherapy. Janet, who hasn't chimed in yet, has commented that she has national health insurance in Spain, and she sees a neurologist occasionally for routine care and the only negative comment she made about him was that he didn't make much of her having one less lesion. SHe hasn't been forced to take CRABS. Currently there have been cases where our government tried to force kids to get chemo and that is without the national health insurance. So it will be the same in that regard with or without a national plan. > > Aren't you implying that there will be fraud and excess cost with any government health plan? The government won't be forcing you to go but they will force you to pay for it. In some cases people are already forced into taking ADD drugs and chemotherapy that they don't choose to do. That's just wrong. I want the government to stay out of the healthcare business. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Here is a horrible story of the Canadian health system. This is not for the squeamish. > > No, I wsan't implying that. I was pointing out the hypocrysy in > What I am trying to say is that I don't see why a good national health insurance program can't be put together. Maybe what they have planned now is not good but that doesn't mean it can't be modified to be made better....People in Canada and Spain who have national health insurance aren't complaining about being forced into vaccinations or chemotherapy. Janet, who hasn't chimed in yet, has commented that she has national health insurance in Spain, and she sees a neurologist occasionally for routine care and the only negative comment she made about him was that he didn't make much of her having one less lesion. SHe hasn't been forced to take CRABS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 People in Canada have had to wait long periods of time for treatment. Many come to the US to get faster care. This isn't about vaccinations it's about the loss of freedom. This is a step in the wrong direction. Working Americans have paid into Social Security/Medicaid/Medicare. Those programs are also left to choice. Most people don't need or want those programs, some people are ineligible. There is no hypocrisy. > > No, I wsan't implying that. I was pointing out the hypocrysy in saying the Medicaid program is OK but that a national health care program is not viable. Obviously fraud is not wanted in any program, be it private or public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 I am advocating a national health insurance program that allows choices. I guess that was not clear. If such can be done with the Medicaid and Medicare systems, then it can be done with a national plan. I know many, many people who never worked a day in their life who get SSI and even SSDI...In many cases, the requirement of having had to pay into the system is waived. I know this for a fact as I used to work for a vendor of the SSDI system that was involved in helping determine who was eligible for SSDI. The fact that some people have not paid into the system is not a good argument against national health care. The fact that Canadians have to wait for health care is not a good argument either. I have often had to wait months to see a U.S. doctor or dentist because they are all booked up. That is an unfortunate thing regardless of what plan someone is on. Anyway, how is it going with the MMS? > > > People in Canada have had to wait long periods of time for treatment. Many come to the US to get faster care. This isn't about vaccinations it's about the loss of freedom. This is a step in the wrong direction. Working Americans have paid into Social Security/Medicaid/Medicare. Those programs are also left Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Anyone that is in favor of a one payer system system as proposed by the President....Really owes it to themselve to Read what is proposed......IT AIN'T just healthcare.......READ, READ, READ..... Regards, Tom Bayuk National Healthcare I am almost reluctant to write this because I don't want to stir up more talk about national healthcare on this board. However, I do feel a desire to point out that most likely the couple of people here who are against national health coverage are people who either have Medicare, private health insurance through a spouse or their own work, or private health insurance that they can afford. If there is anyone here who is uninsured or underinsured and is against national health insurance, I would be very interested in hearing from them. I doubt there are any such people, but please let me know if there are! National health insurance does not equate to socialism. Canada is not a socialist county. I also recall Janet mentioning her country or a country she lived in the past had national health insurance--I believe that is Spain. Spain is not a socialist country either. As for myself, although I have no income and everything comes from my savings account (which is running thin) and I had to sell my home to survive, I pay $220 per month for a very poor health insurance plan that has a $2500 out-of pocket deductible every year that I must pay before they even pay anything toward my medical bills--and then they cover onlyy 70% if I have met the deductible. Because I have an offical MS diagnosis in my records, I have not been allowed to upgrade my health insurance plan with them or get insurance from any other carrier, and I have no been approved by SSDI for assistance. Every year, I spend over $2500 for health insurance monthly premiums and then another couple thousand for various things like measuring my uterine fibroid, occasionally seeing the neurologist or regular doctor, LDN and prescription progesterone cream (which are not covered because my insurance does not deem them appropriate), etc. I for one am very much looking forward to national health insurance coverage to reduce the approximate $4,000-$5000 I spend every year for health coverage costs as outlined above. And I am pretty sure that those people who like me are uninsured or underinsured and cannot afford or are not eligible for health insurance are also looking forward to it. The reason I even keep the health insurance at all is for catasrophic issues such as a car accident, coma, etc. -- It is easy to criticize national coverage if you have health insurance. When you don't have health insurance, you can see things differently. I understand some people are afraid of forced vaccinations, etc and the government having too much control over our health, but there is always a choice of whether to go to the doctor of not. There is no way the government is going to round up the $300 million or so people that live in this country to make sure everyone gets a swine flu vaccination. The resources to do this are not there, and such a scenario is unprecedented as is just not going to happen. So at the risk of unce again being called a " sheeple " by someone in this group (she knows who she is, if she has enough insight to remember and admit it) who sent me a direct email calling me a " sheeple " because I said I support Obama -- I am expressing my views, partiucarly in support of those of us who are uninsured and uninsured and there are many in this group who stay on the sidelines and choose not to chime in, so I think I speak for others as well. Lastly, no matter what health insurance someone has, the chance of getting fully or mostly covered by a top alternative doc such as Cowden, Klinghardt, or Mercola--or getting insurance to pay for something like stem cell therapy is essentially nil anyway. OK, I have no plans to rebut, but I had to speak my peace-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 could you send me his site plz. I am always looking for more natural remedies. TY Subject: Re: National Healthcare To: mscured Date: Friday, September 18, 2009, 5:39 PM , I am against National Health Insurance. We do not have insurance because we can not afford it. Even if we could afford insurance, there are NO insurance plans which cover our prefered methods of treatment. There is a holistic dr about 2 hours from us that I would give my left arm to be able to take my 7 yr old, mentally ill step daughter to. The guy has a reputation for being competent and his treatments are very effective. My step daughter is on heavy duty psych. meds with very little result. I beleive this dr could help her, but no insurance will cover him, and he charges $300 a visit. (a visit consists of 3 hours of his time in office, a starter pack of whatever herbs or homeopathic remedies he suggests, and as many follow up phone calls as you need in a 2 month period.) But because he's not an allopathic physician no insurance company will work with him. We can't afford $300 at one clip for a visit, so I read his website, and and attend any webinars he gives, hoping to learn enough from him to help my step daugher function. However, I would rather do without insurance than have the government tell me what treatments and medications I can receive. Did you know that doctors can refuse to treat you if you refuse their treatment plan? So.. let's say this National Health Insurance says a person with MS must use one of the CRAB drugs in order to be eligible for further treatment. You go to your Dr. and refuse the CRABs, but you want something for occasional muscle spasms related to the MS. The dr. won't give it to you. Or.. let's say you take your child to the dr, and dr says I want your kid on this ADD med. But, you refuse the med. National Health Insurance guidelines say ADD has to be treated. Your dr then would be required to report you for child neglect because you " failed to treat your child's illness " But, maybe, like us, youre treating that kid at home with herbs. It won't matter. because the National Health Insurance plan says you MUST use this set of drugs if you have this specific DX. THAT is where this is all heading. There is a planned drug formulary and those using the National Healh Insurance will be requied to use the drugs in that formulary. Period. No discussion. Why should I be fined because I choose to forgo allopathic health care in favor of herbs, supplements, chiropractic, or Traditional Chinese Medicine? The National Health Plan won't cover alternatives -- ther's no money in it. Don't be fooled into thinking politicians care about your health. They care about two things.. power and money. Power, because by forcing people to use thier healht plan, they can control the health of the public, where the public spends it's healthcare money AND the treatments you use to manage YOUR body. .. money because many politicians have thier hands in the pharmacutical business in some way. I'd rather take the money I'd spend on insurance and put it in savings, where it sits and earns interest until we need it for medical care. Yvette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 I watched the clip and yes, it was awful. But we could trade awful stories all day. Insurance provider stories are just as bad and probably a lot more frequent. Bigotry (which is not limited to race) and greed are just things we are always going to have to battle. To: mscured From: tazeeyore@... Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 04:40:54 +0000 Subject: Re: National Healthcare Here is a horrible story of the Canadian health system. This is not for the squeamish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 The insurance companies don't cover alternative therapy now. That may not change. I can handle the cost of supplements and there will still be the same physicians who are holistic. It will still be a matter of finding them. I don't think all alopathic medicine is evil. If I need emergency medicine or become critically ill I want traditional insurance. Some conditions are genetic and can't be managed without drugs. I can only hope that the cost-effectiveness of alternative and preventive medicine will be more obvious if insurance companies have to compete with a non-profit. To: mscured From: harlie43512@... Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 07:29:03 -0700 Subject: Re: National Healthcare Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity 5 New MembersVisit Your Group Ads on Yahoo! Learn more now. Reach customers searching for you. Yahoo! Groups Dog Lovers Group Connect and share with dog owners like you Check out the Y! Groups blog Stay up to speed on all things Groups! .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 The MMS is going well. I've had a few days of die-off/healing reaction but I'm taking it slow. Tell Rep. Myrick, who was diagnosed with cancer, to wait for treatment! Tell the 1.6 million people who lose their jobs, because small businesses will be required to pay for insurance for their employees and they can't afford it, that this is a good idea. We are so far apart on this that you will not see any argument as valid. You are dreaming if you think a governent-run plan will allow choice. What kinds of choices do you think Medicaid offers? I have to get treatments approved if I want to do them. I waited 6 months to get partial teeth! I was only allowed a short time for physical therapy and I was evaluated after each week to see if there was reason to continue. It lasted for 6 weeks, tops, not until I benefitted from it. It had to be doctor recommended. --- In mscured , " trekkie323 > > I am advocating a national health insurance program that allows choices. I guess that was not clear. If such can be done with the Medicaid and Medicare systems, then it can be done with a national plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Do you really believe the American government is not out to make a buck? They are. It should not be that way... but it is. Our government has become nothing more than one huge, sprawling business organization. I have a couple of questions for everyone who supports this national health care thing.. 1. did you know that before health insurance became a big business most if not all doctors and hospitals were willing and able to provide care on a sliding scale fee to patients who could prove they could not afford standard rates. Did you know that today they are not allowed to do that without a special permit? A doctor is legally not allowed to set his/her own rates. When I was a baby, I had a lot of health problems that my parents could not afford to care for --this was in 1970. People paid for their medical services in cash.. office visits were less than the cost of most people's co-pays today. My pediatrician was able to reduce his fees, the hospital where I spent 3 months in what we now call neonatal ICU reduced their costs and even waived some of the specialized fees to bring costs down to something my parents could afford. In addition, I needed in home care several times as a child. My aunt happened to be a well respected nurse. So.. my dr assigned my aunt to be my in home provider. Today, because of insurance laws.. each one of those coping mechanisms is illegal. 2. Have you read the American Constitution? The bottom line here.... national health care is unconstitutional -- and therefore illegal in the United States of America. The document this country was founded on.. the ultimate law of the land says the federal government has no place in this. It could, possibly, be done legally on a state level, but federal health care is illegal. Yvette On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Marilyn Higgins wrote: > > > > The insurance companies don't cover alternative therapy now. That may not > change. I can handle the cost of supplements and there will still be the > same physicians who are holistic. It will still be a matter of finding them. > I don't think all alopathic medicine is evil. If I need emergency medicine > or become critically ill I want traditional insurance. Some conditions are > genetic and can't be managed without drugs. I can only hope that the > cost-effectiveness of alternative and preventive medicine will be more > obvious if insurance companies have to compete with a non-profit. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Hi , Thanks for bringing me into the conversation. As it was about National Heathcare, I thought I should stay out of it not being American. Yes, here in Spain (Socialist actually) there is a National scheme, much like England with its NHS (the difference being that it works here ). Catalunya, where I live, has a separate Health policy from the mainstream Spanish one but if you didn't know, you'd see it the same as the national one. There has been no mention in the news of enforced vaccinations, it is too full of who Barcelona beat in the latest football match. As a foreigner, you should have private health insurance to live here but with MS no private health insurance would cover me. The state (Catsalut) does cover me and for rougly 80 bucks a month, my husband and I are covered for everything. No, that doesn't include alternatives but it does pay for repeat MRIs if necessary and 40% of prescription charges. I am very grateful for the national health system if I were ever in dire need of something. As it is, I choose to follow the alternative route. I don't know anywhere that would cover my shiploads of vitamins and minerals that I believe make a huge difference. As it is, in a way, they are covering my other " alternative " here, as MJ is not not allowed here and practically everyone up here grows a bit (even 90 year old old women to help alleviate their arthritis) and it helps with spasms, spasticity, pain, relaxation and just dealing with the fact that the mainstream sucks ) Janet To: mscured From: trekkie323@... I also recall Janet mentioning her country or a country she lived in the past had national health insurance--I believe that is Spain. Spain is not a socialist country either. _________________________________________________________________ Show them the way! Add maps and directions to your party invites. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/events.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Forgot the bit about the current neuro. He would like to enforce CRABS but knows that I will refuse. He obviously holds a mainstream view and doesn't understand why I take all the vitamins and minerals that I take and is always eager to write down which ones help or not. (He asks about it in a way of someone humouring a child.) However, I should point out that he is the one who got me on MJ - just told me to go out and get some. He hasn't answered my e-mails since a lesion disappeared or my e-mails about CCSVI. I guess the mainstream neuros are going to have to pull their socks up now that we have access to a lot of the information they have, and, believe it or not, some of us actually have functioning brains. I think he'd prefer it if I were brain-dead like most of his patients (on CRABS). Janet To: mscured From: trekkie323@... Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 04:33:18 +0000 Subject: Re: National Healthcare No, I wsan't implying that. I was pointing out the hypocrysy in saying the Medicaid program is OK but that a national health care program is not viable. Obviously fraud is not wanted in any program, be it private or public. Unfortunately there is fraud in many things ranging for example from auto mechanics to regular health insurance to government to wall street etc. I am not condoning fraud in any way. I have been ripped off more times than I care to count. I hate fraud. What I am trying to say is that I don't see why a good national health insurance program can't be put together. Maybe what they have planned now is not good but that doesn't mean it can't be modified to be made better....People in Canada and Spain who have national health insurance aren't complaining about being forced into vaccinations or chemotherapy. Janet, who hasn't chimed in yet, has commented that she has national health insurance in Spain, and she sees a neurologist occasionally for routine care and the only negative comment she made about him was that he didn't make much of her having one less lesion. SHe hasn't been forced to take CRABS. Currently there have been cases where our government tried to force kids to get chemo and that is without the national health insurance. So it will be the same in that regard with or without a national plan. > > Aren't you implying that there will be fraud and excess cost with any government health plan? The government won't be forcing you to go but they will force you to pay for it. In some cases people are already forced into taking ADD drugs and chemotherapy that they don't choose to do. That's just wrong. I want the government to stay out of the healthcare business. > _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out! http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 > > I am almost reluctant to write this because I don't want to stir up more talk about national healthcare on this board. However, I do feel a desire to point out that most likely the couple of people here who are against national health coverage are people who either have Medicare, private health insurance through a spouse or their own work, or private health insurance that they can afford. If there is anyone here who is uninsured or underinsured and is against national health insurance, I would be very interested in hearing from them. I doubt there are any such people, but please let me know if there are! > > National health insurance does not equate to socialism. Canada is not a socialist county. I also recall Janet mentioning her country or a country she lived in the past had national health insurance--I believe that is Spain. Spain is not a socialist country either. > > As for myself, although I have no income and everything comes from my savings account (which is running thin) and I had to sell my home to survive, I pay $220 per month for a very poor health insurance plan that has a $2500 out-of pocket deductible every year that I must pay before they even pay anything toward my medical bills--and then they cover onlyy 70% if I have met the deductible. Because I have an offical MS diagnosis in my records, I have not been allowed to upgrade my health insurance plan with them or get insurance from any other carrier, and I have no been approved by SSDI for assistance. Every year, I spend over $2500 for health insurance monthly premiums and then another couple thousand for various things like measuring my uterine fibroid, occasionally seeing the neurologist or regular doctor, LDN and prescription progesterone cream (which are not covered because my insurance does not deem them appropriate), etc. > > I for one am very much looking forward to national health insurance coverage to reduce the approximate $4,000-$5000 I spend every year for health coverage costs as outlined above. And I am pretty sure that those people who like me are uninsured or underinsured and cannot afford or are not eligible for health insurance are also looking forward to it. > > The reason I even keep the health insurance at all is for catasrophic issues such as a car accident, coma, etc. -- > > It is easy to criticize national coverage if you have health insurance. When you don't have health insurance, you can see things differently. > > I understand some people are afraid of forced vaccinations, etc and the government having too much control over our health, but there is always a choice of whether to go to the doctor of not. There is no way the government is going to round up the $300 million or so people that live in this country to make sure everyone gets a swine flu vaccination. The resources to do this are not there, and such a scenario is unprecedented as is just not going to happen. > > So at the risk of unce again being called a " sheeple " by someone in this group (she knows who she is, if she has enough insight to remember and admit it) who sent me a direct email calling me a " sheeple " because I said I support Obama -- I am expressing my views, partiucarly in support of those of us who are uninsured and uninsured and there are many in this group who stay on the sidelines and choose not to chime in, so I think I speak for others as well. > > Lastly, no matter what health insurance someone has, the chance of getting fully or mostly covered by a top alternative doc such as Cowden, Klinghardt, or Mercola--or getting insurance to pay for something like stem cell therapy is essentially nil anyway. > > OK, I have no plans to rebut, but I had to speak my peace-- > > > I agree with you on all points, wonderful e-mail. Something needs to be done fast and the Backaus bill will only create more problems and cater to the greedy insurance companies who gouge American's. Dan Glines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 > 2. Have you read the American Constitution? The bottom line here.... > national health care is unconstitutional -- and therefore illegal in the > United States of America. The document this country was founded on.. the > ultimate law of the land says the federal government has no place in this. > It could, possibly, be done legally on a state level, but federal health > care is illegal. > > Yvette Federal health care " illegal " ? Then this must mean that Medicare does not really exist. Must be a figment of our imaginations? ;-0 Alice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 > > I never said Medicare didn't exist. I said it is unconstitutional and > illegal for the US government to be in the business providing health > insurance. The US Constitution specifically states than all powers not > mentioned by name within that document are to fall to the states, not the > feds. Yvette > > > Federal health care " illegal " ? Then this must mean that Medicare does not > really exist. Must be a figment of our imaginations? ;-0 > > Alice > > __._,_.__ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.